Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
836
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

836 Views
Message 661 of 1,448

"Words are but wind." - Italian proverb 

 

”The plausibility of the bladder as a target for fluoride is supported by the tendency of hydrogen fluoride (HF) to form under physiologically acid conditions, such as found in urine. Hydrogen fluoride is caustic and might increase the potential for cellular damage, including genotoxicity." - 2006 NRC on Fluoride in Drinking Water, page 330

 

Asbestos was thought so great that not only did we stuff our school buildings full of it, we wove it into kids' pajamas. We did this at the recommendation of the same folks who at the same time were promoting fluoridation. It's the hard data that is meaningful, and we have plenty of data that the chemicals we use to fluoridate our waters convert to HF in our bodies where it is even more toxic than HFSA, FSA or NaF. 

 

Interesting read: HF becomes FSA but easily converts back: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch08/final/c08s07.pdf

 

Even in the human body: https://www.nap.edu/read/12741/chapter/6 Screen Shot 2018-10-30 at 3.00.59 PM.png

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
836
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
828
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

828 Views
Message 662 of 1,448

Richard, your quote:  "I know it musst be difficult for a fluoridation promoter to understand, because no one actually wants to find out that they are harming, rather than helping, people.  But for the benefit of the country please try harder to understand. 

NSF standard 60 allows the final concentation of EPA contaminants in water at only 10% of their MCL. But 10% of the fluoride MCL's of 2 - 4 ppm in water would be 0.2 - 0.4 ppm. Fluoridation is conducted at 0.7 - 1 ppm, so NSF had little choice but to re-describe the fluoride contaminant (which it is) as a "water additive" (which it is not, since it does not purify water) that would then be allowed."

 

First of all, I don't know that I'm a "fluoridation promoter."  I consider myself more of an anti-scare mongerer.

 

I asked the fluoridation engineer at the CDC about the point you are making.  First of all, nowhere in the SDWA does it say that all water additives must only purify water.  There are many additives which are NSF approved which treat other additives.  There are additives which adjust pH.  --  My point here is that a legal expert you are not.

 

Anyway, Kip Duchon at the CDC explained that the NSF rule you cited does not apply to the additive itself.  I know you already know this, because you have already said this in a previous comment.  

 

Your quote:  "And since when is a Nation's entire water supply supposed to be controlled by a private organization anyway? Answer: when the EPA does not want to regulate a contaminant because it is believed at low concentrations to be a therapeutic treatment that is endorsed by the Federal CDC, then the private organization the NSF is asked to take charge of certification of the EPA hazardous waste source material. Avoiding liability is of paramount importance to Federal agencies, so when an Agency is expected to take charge of an issue with which they have no expertise, then it is farmed out."

 

Wow!  It must be scarey in your world.  First of all, EPA takes responsibility for water fluoridation.  For the 4th time now, EPA allows 4 ppm F in drinking water.  If anyone were to be harmed by drinking water with 1 ppm F, that would be EPA's fault.  And guess what.  People sue the EPA all the time.  

 

In the second place, the "nation's entire water supply" isn't controlled by a private organization.  You are talking about NSF?  EPA has outsourced some of its workload to NSF, an independent not-for-profit organization which is made up experts in many fields.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
828
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
829
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

829 Views
Message 663 of 1,448

Richard, this is your entire quote.  You said, "The NSF labels fluosilicic acid hazardous waste as a water purifying agent pass inspection and to gain favor with skeptics so that it appears legal to add into water."  ‎10-30-2018 10:50 AM

 

Response:  Ok, I had to read this a few times to understand what you were saying.  Your grammer is a bit muddled.  You are the one calling fluorosilicic acid a "hazardous waste."  (The NSF labels fluosilicic acid hazardous waste as a water purifying agent . ."  It would have been more understandable if you had said, "The NSF lables fluorosilicic acid, which is a hazardous waste, a water purifying agent."  You needed some comas for clarity.)

 

That's a lie too.  The NSF doesn't label fluorosilicic acid as a water purifying agent (because it is not a water purifying agent - not every water additive is for the purpose of making water clean.  We've already gone over this.), to gain favor with skeptics or for any other reason.  Please provide the link which supports that "untruth."

 

Falsus in UnoFalsus in Omnibus

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
829
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
849
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

849 Views
Message 664 of 1,448

I know it musst be difficult for a fluoridation promoter to understand, because no one actually wants to find out that they are harming, rather than helping, people.  But for the benefit of the country please try harder to understand. 

NSF standard 60 allows the final concentation of EPA contaminants in water at only 10% of their MCL. But 10% of the fluoride MCL's of 2 - 4 ppm in water would be 0.2 - 0.4 ppm. Fluoridation is conducted at 0.7 - 1 ppm, so NSF had little choice but to re-describe the fluoride contaminant (which it is) as a "water additive" (which it is not, since it does not purify water) that would then be allowed.

And since when is a Nation's entire water supply supposed to be controlled by a private organization anyway? Answer: when the EPA does not want to regulate a contaminant because it is believed at low concentrations to be a therapeutic treatment that is endorsed by the Federal CDC, then the private organization the NSF is asked to take charge of certification of the EPA hazardous waste source material. Avoiding liability is of paramount importance to Federal agencies, so when an Agency is expected to take charge of an issue with which they have no expertise, then it is farmed out. Understand better? 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
Tags (2)
2
Kudos
849
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
885
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

885 Views
Message 665 of 1,448

You are taking one portion of the statement out of context. The EPA itslef (including me and other scientists) labels fluosilicic acid prepared from fertilizer waste as a hazardous waste, because it is a hazardous waste.

The NSF describes that hazardous waste a water "purifying agent" when it is intentionally added into water.. 

Have you even read the 320 page NSF document on water regulations and requirements that includes Standard 60? 

Part of the text labels fluoride as a water contaminant (as labeled by the EPA). Other parts of the text change the name to indicate it is an allowed additive if it is added on purpose.

They go so far as to overrule their own regulations, of allowing contaminants at only 10% of the EPA MCL, for fluoride because when it is added on purpose it is then considered by NSF to be an additive. NSF has no expertise in toxicology testing or in regulating the fluoridation of people and yet stamps seals of approval on hazardous waste that is labeled a water additive. .

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
885
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
891
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

891 Views
Message 666 of 1,448

Thanks for all your input about Vitamin D, Dr. Rich.  However, it would have been more appropriate for you to respond to questions directed toward you, instead of avoiding them.  

 

For example, this from me:

 

"Your quote:  ""The NSF labels fluosilicic acid hazardous waste . . "

 

That is a verifiable "untruth."  NSF says no such thing.  If so, please provide evidence of that."

 

So, again, could you please provide a link to an NSF website in which it labels fluorosilicic acid a "hazardous waste?"

 

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
891
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
907
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

907 Views
Message 667 of 1,448

Since vitamin D and bone health is now the topic, understand that many dentists who support fluoridation are coming to understand that bone health is compromised when people are treated with fluoride as in water fluoridation. Here for example are statements in one J Dental Res. article:

 

“While NaF may increase bone mass, the newly formed bone appears to lack normal structure and strength (Carter and Beaupre, 1990Riggs et al., 1990Søgaard et al., 1994). In trabecular bone, fluoride results in an increase in bone volume and trabecular thickness without a concomitant increase in trabecular connectivity (Aaron et al., 1991). It is this lack of trabecular connectivity that reduces bone quality despite the increase in bone mass. These observations in humans have been extended in rodents (Søgaard et al., 1995Turner et al., 1995)” from:

Fluoride’s Effects on the Formation of Teeth and Bones, and the Influence of Genetics

E.T. Everett, J Dent Res. 2011 May; 90(5): 552–560.

 

Notice that since fluoridation is not halted, dentists believe that poor quality bone is a side effect that one must accept in order to treat teeth. This of course is nonsense since fluoridation of people does not affect dental caries in the first place.

 

So what pray tell are we supposed to tell seniors who failthfully consume artificially fluoridated  water their entire life and develop bone and joint pain issues in later years? A fluoridaitonist might  falsely proclaim something like: at least you didn't have as many dental caries, and fluoridation is low level so in spite of the accumulation of it in bone, the pain must be caused by something else, but if fluoride accumulation in bone is involved, then that is a side effect of us helping your teeth so live with it--otherwise you would be depriving children of proper dental care.

 

Scientists and rational people could say: we've tried to halt the fluoridation of your bones since some experience pain even at about 1,700 ppm in bone, the concentration of fluoride in toothpaste which is achieved in people consuming fluoride water for 20 years, but a government recommended program is difficult to stop, we're very sorry. The SDWA was supposed to halt the spread of fluoridation but judges in courts and fluoride promoters have allowed exceptions for fluoridation. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
907
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
900
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

900 Views
Message 668 of 1,448

Vitamin D fights dental decay (see the Linus Pauling publications). Fluoride does not, as revealed by the Teotias; by Ziegelbecker; and Yiamouyiannis; and Sutton; and the CA NIDR study, etc. And why would one believe it could when it is only 0.016 ppm in saliva when consuming fluoridated water?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
900
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
896
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

896 Views
Message 669 of 1,448

Vitamin D fights dental decay (see the Linus Pauling publications). Fluoride does not, as revealed by the Teotias; by Ziegelbecker; and Yiamouyiannis; and Sutton; and the CA NIDR study, etc. And why would one believe it could when it is only 0.016 ppm in saliva when consuming fluoridated water?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
896
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
907
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

907 Views
Message 670 of 1,448

Fluoride is not a vitamin. In fact fluoride opposes the chief function of vitamin D, so the analogy is ludicrous.  Vitamin D is essential for proper assimilation of calcium, to build strong bones and teeth.

Yes, calcium builds strong bone and teeth, not fluoride. Fluoride instead incorporates pathologically  into bone and alters its crystal structure, forming bone of poor quality as it accumulates irreversibly during lifelong ingestion.  

Fluoride is thus an anathema to bone health, while vitamin D is essential for it.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
907
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Open Enrollment: Oct 15-Dec 7, 2019 Find resources to help you decide on the best healthcare insurance plans for you during Open Enrollment season

Top Authors